3 ms·

As someone who is actively looking for things in this space to invest in and to determine whether it makes sense at all, I can only say that so far it doesn't l

As someone who is actively looking for things in this space to invest in and to determine whether it makes sense at all, I can only say that so far it doesn't look good. There are a bunch of problems with the fundamental analysis of the problem, but even if we all magically agreed that climate change was the biggest threat to humanity then the real problem is in the solutions. Energy is a physics not a technology problem. And the reality is that we haven't had any major scientific breakthroughs in this space since fossil fuels and nuclear. Almost all of modern society is depending on them and there is no new fundamental scientific discoveries to replace them anytime soon. I have sat in on countless plastic alternative presentations only to discover that while it might work in a lab it won't scale and it's only for a fraction of the things you can use plastic for. Plastic gives us everything from as hard as diamond to as soft as spiderweb. No other materical does that. When it comes to energy there are currently three potential solutions worth following with the ability to solve our energy needs and still be green. Fusion, thorium and fuell cells. If you want to solve fusion you have to at least try and taggle plasma which means tagging magnets or something similar. In other words you have to make discoveries in completely different fields than the field of fusion itself. Fuell cells is equally far off and we don't really have a realistic model for how to create them and apply them to ex wind and solar which will be needed to make them even remotely competitive in the bigger game otherwise the realities of their capacity factor is just not going to cut it. Thorium is the one that seams most feasible but still require a lot of progress to be anywhere close to ready. In other words I think we will be stuck with fossil fuels for a very very long time and if these climate capitalists were really serious about this they would put the money towards fundamental science instead, the will have a slightly smaller chance of succeeding but if successful their investment will dwarf whatever they can do in the startup space.

icebraining 7y ago
Can you clarify what do you mean by "replace"? Are you talking about full replacement for all uses of plastic/fossil fuels (so that we don't have to use them ever again), or are you saying there is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel even by selecting specific alternatives for specific uses (like packaging)?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  There is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel. We underappreciate how many things fossil fuel can be used for. It's not just fuel and plastic which in itself is extremely valuable. But it's also pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles, toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on. It's so ever present in our daily life that living without it would kill most of us. Sure there are alternatives to some of this, but we are not even close to having solutions for 99.9% of the uses of plastic today. With regards to energy then also here it's hard to see the alternatives without fuell cells, thorium or fusion being a reality anytime soon. I've looked at a lot of different alternative energy forms and while there are some interesting concepts in between I have yet to see something that can compete properly. A lot of Rube Goldberg solutions out there or solutinos that require a complete redevelopment of the very infrastructure we spent 200 years building. So I am very skeptical but still looking. I am not saying you can't make a good investment on some of them, but whether you can save the world by investing in some of the things I have seen at least is very unrealistic.
  - vardump 7y ago
    > But it's also pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles, toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on. How about adding concrete (coal) and asphalt [0] to that list? A world without fossil fuels would indeed look dramatically different. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I doubt many, if any, of those advocating for a move to renewable energy and EVs are calling for a blanket ban on oil for non-combustive uses. We have alternatives for far, far more than 0.1% of the world's plastic though. We could probably get rid of most of it without a change in our quality of life, or effectiveness of products. Keep the oil for the few uses that can't be easily replaced by other more sustainable sources. Which almost certainly means contact lenses, and assorted medical uses, specialised equipment, some chemicals etc.
olau 7y ago
> Energy is a physics not a technology problem. There's plenty of energy out there, delivered by the Sun. You just need cheap tech to harvest and store it. Energy is most decidedly a tech problem. What has moved PV and wind turbines from niche tech to the real deal is production scale. Once production is scaling up, there's plenty of money for research in practical problems.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  The energy is spread thin which makes it great for powering a watch or a house but not for actual serial industrial usage which is where our primary energy usage would be. Energy is not a tech problem, optimizing subpar energy to deliver 5% better when the capacity factor is down at around 20-30 isn't actually solving anything fundamental and our energy usage is a fundamental problem. The future will need more energy much much more. Wind and solar are linear solutions to an exponential problem.
tim333 7y ago
Wind, solar and batteries can do a lot. Wind and solar are pretty much good enough now, batteries less so but they are improving quite quickly.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  I love how people just claim things without the shred of evidence of their claims. Again less than 1% of worlds energy, if thats your definition of a lot well...

icebraining 7y ago

Can you clarify what do you mean by "replace"? Are you talking about full replacement for all uses of plastic/fossil fuels (so that we don't have to use them ever again), or are you saying there is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel even by selecting specific alternatives for specific uses (like packaging)?

ThomPete 7y ago
There is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel. We underappreciate how many things fossil fuel can be used for. It's not just fuel and plastic which in itself is extremely valuable. But it's also pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles, toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on. It's so ever present in our daily life that living without it would kill most of us. Sure there are alternatives to some of this, but we are not even close to having solutions for 99.9% of the uses of plastic today. With regards to energy then also here it's hard to see the alternatives without fuell cells, thorium or fusion being a reality anytime soon. I've looked at a lot of different alternative energy forms and while there are some interesting concepts in between I have yet to see something that can compete properly. A lot of Rube Goldberg solutions out there or solutinos that require a complete redevelopment of the very infrastructure we spent 200 years building. So I am very skeptical but still looking. I am not saying you can't make a good investment on some of them, but whether you can save the world by investing in some of the things I have seen at least is very unrealistic.
- vardump 7y ago
  > But it's also pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles, toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on. How about adding concrete (coal) and asphalt [0] to that list? A world without fossil fuels would indeed look dramatically different. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I doubt many, if any, of those advocating for a move to renewable energy and EVs are calling for a blanket ban on oil for non-combustive uses. We have alternatives for far, far more than 0.1% of the world's plastic though. We could probably get rid of most of it without a change in our quality of life, or effectiveness of products. Keep the oil for the few uses that can't be easily replaced by other more sustainable sources. Which almost certainly means contact lenses, and assorted medical uses, specialised equipment, some chemicals etc.

olau 7y ago

> Energy is a physics not a technology problem. There's plenty of energy out there, delivered by the Sun. You just need cheap tech to harvest and store it. Energy is most decidedly a tech problem. What has moved PV and wind turbines from niche tech to the real deal is production scale. Once production is scaling up, there's plenty of money for research in practical problems.

ThomPete 7y ago
The energy is spread thin which makes it great for powering a watch or a house but not for actual serial industrial usage which is where our primary energy usage would be. Energy is not a tech problem, optimizing subpar energy to deliver 5% better when the capacity factor is down at around 20-30 isn't actually solving anything fundamental and our energy usage is a fundamental problem. The future will need more energy much much more. Wind and solar are linear solutions to an exponential problem.

tim333 7y ago

Wind, solar and batteries can do a lot. Wind and solar are pretty much good enough now, batteries less so but they are improving quite quickly.

ThomPete 7y ago
I love how people just claim things without the shred of evidence of their claims. Again less than 1% of worlds energy, if thats your definition of a lot well...